November 23, 2004
Political coverage after the election
Democrats became a target of criticism
Bush, and the Republicans, received large positive coverage after the election: Of all reports covering Republicans, 30.2% were positive while 8.3% were negative. Kerry and the Democrats received substantial negative coverage in the week after the election: Of all reports on the Democrats, 42.5% were negative and only 1.7% were positive. In the coverage of Kerry, almost 30% of the reports were negative and 16.3% were positive. (The remaining share corresponds to reports with either neutral, or without clear ratings.)
Bush's ratings in polls followed media coverage
Before Election Day, President Bush was facing low job approval ratings in polls. After his re-election, however, a wave of positive coverage in TV news was followed by an expressive change in the results in polls: his ratings went up. In the two weeks following Election Day, Bush received very positive coverage on network news as well as Fox News channel.. Fox News and NBC presented the most positive portrayal of Bush in general, with a share of positive over negative reports on Fox News equivalent to 26.63% and almost 23% on NBC.
TV news portrayed Ashcroft with positive ratings
TV news followed Attorney General Ashcroft's and Commerce Secretary Don Evans' resignations with positive coverage. In contrast, Republican Senator Arlen Specter - who made the news with his pro-abortion positions - was covered in a rather critical tone.
Domestic security loses space to Iraq in the news
Overall, Bush's social, domestic and economic policies were covered in positive terms in the weeks after the election.
Domestic security was a prominent issue in the last week before Election Day, largely because of the bin Laden tape. After the election, however, it was not covered as frequently. One week after Election Day, Iraq became the most important topic on TV news. Healthcare and the economy were only minor topics both before and after the election.
* The overall ratings (positive/neutral/negative) are determined by the content of the text and words used by the journalist in the article - according to very strict criteria that don't allow the analyst to infuse personal opinions or judgment into the analysis. The ratings are derived from the combination of context (when the content is embedded in positive or negative context) and explicit ratings (when the journalist uses or cites words of clearly positive or negative judgment).
Download complete report with graphics at: http://www.mediatenor.com/politic1122.htm
Posted by Isadora Badi at November 23, 2004 09:25 AMI think that the practice of labelling the media as biased based on positive vs negative coverage is a flawed premise. Rather than demonstrating an anti-Kerry bias, the negative coverage probably reflects that fact that he lost, and the reporters were trying to figure out why (so, looking to negatives). Bush, on the other hand, won, so the tendancy would naturally be to focus on his victory, why people voted for him, etc, and therefore positive.
The labelling of the mainstream media as having a liberal bias has been one of the most outstanding achievements of the conservative strategists ever. It allows republicans to attack news organizations who challenge them, rather than dealing with the issues that are raised. A major part of the Bush team’s defense about the missing explosives was to blame the media for making a big deal out of it, and ignoring the successes, suggesting that the media was out to get them. I know that Cheney has dismissed issues brought up by the Washington Post by simply saying that they were an unfriendly paper.
All media sources are supposed to be unfriendly. They are supposed to be out to get politicians. The reason for our free press is that they can expose problems, corruption, and mistakes. Whether a media outlet is “liberal” or “conservative” it is the facts, not the news organization providing them, that should be dealt with.
I know that there was a huge cry about “Rathergate”, but I think that the most likely explanation for why the forged documents were aired was not political bias (do you really think that if they had documents from a source they considered credible suggesting that Kerry was AWOL they wouldn’t have shown them?),but rather the rush to get a scoop. However, by focusing on percieved “bias” republicans can not only dismiss any inconvenient fact, they can present themselves as the underdog, even when they are in total control of the government.
I am glad we are finally hearing some good news. Not just about Bush, but about everything.
Having so much negative news all the time does have an impact on people.
I’ll even bet that there are some who believe the world was going to end.
About the only good news we ever see has to do with an animal rescue. Big deal. I really don’t care if someone’s cat is stuck on a pole or if a dog got caught out on a chunk of ice. Not on the National News as a breaking story anyway.
More stories like the one about that little girl from Iraq who was brought here for medical attention would be nice. Stories about the Afghan women and girls being able to live a ‘normal’ life would be good too.
How about the people in England and France that are pro American? I could stand to hear more of that. Muslim leaders who want the violence to stop.
We can’t win the battle against the hate if there isn’t ever any good news about anything.
Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 12:36 PMIndeed !
It’s not all bad.
Hospitals are re-opening.
Children are returning to school.
Business are opening up everywhere.
Here’s some encouraging photos from IRAQ …
Photo001.jpg
Photo002.jpg
Photo003.jpg
Photo004.jpg
Photo005.jpg
Good riddance to U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft.
Did you know Ashcroft cost the tax payers $8000
for a curtain to cover the female, art-deco “Spirit of Justice” statue ?
I wonder what Sigmond A. Freud would say about that?
See statue: Curtains for the Justice Statue
